General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLaw Firm Issues Bogus Advice to Clerks About Gay Marriage Licenses, Gets Slapped Down
From Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/01/02/florida_gay_marriage_controversy_firm_tells_clerks_they_ll_go_to_jail.html
On Jan. 6, gay marriage will become legal in Florida, despite Attorney General Pam Bondis tireless efforts to ensure that same-sex couples in the state remain legal strangers. But this is Florida were talking about, land of hanging chads and python hunts, so naturally, theres a bizarre last-minute hitch: In December, law firm Greenberg Traurig sent an unscrupulous legal memo to the states clerks, informing them that they could be arrested for issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
Greenbergs memo was disreputable for a number of reasons, but its primary problem is that it was incredibly stupid. In August 2014, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that Florida's anti-gay-marriage amendment violated the U.S. Constitution. But he put the ruling on hold while the state appealed, setting the hold to expire at the end of the day on Jan. 5, 2015, unless a higher court stepped in. Both the 11th Circuit and the Supreme Court, however, refused to stay Hinkles ruling, and so clerks throughout Florida are now preparing for a flood of gay applicants the morning of Jan. 6. Given that the states gay marriage ban had been legally invalidated, granting marriage licenses to gay couples would seem to be the clerks legal duty.
Thats when Greenberg stepped in. In a deceptive and borderline unethical memo, the firm wrote that Hinkles order bound only a single clerk, the named plaintiff in the case, to a single gay couple, the named defendants. The judges ruling, Greenberg explained, had absolutely no effect on every other clerk in every other county. Thus, any clerk who dared to issue a marriage license on Jan. 6 would be violating Floridas gay marriage banwhich, in the firms view, was still valid. And because this ban created criminal penalties for those who violate it, any clerk who granted same-sex marriage licenses on Jan. 6 could be subject to prosecution and jail time.
This, of course, is nonsenseand on New Years Day, Hinkle issued a new order lambasting Greenbergs memo as the sloppy piece of duplicitous disruption that it is. History, Hinkle wrote, tartly invoking the days of massive resistance, records no shortage of instances when state officials defied federal court orders on issues of federal constitutional law. Happily, there are many more instances when responsible officials followed the law, like it or not. Some clerks, Hinkle admitted, may choose to wait for a higher court to rule on the merits of Floridas ban before issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. But there should be no debate that if a clerk chooses to follow Hinkles rulingthat is, chooses to obey the lawshe wont be sent to jail. Further, Hinkle noted, those clerks who choose to discriminate against gay couples should remember that they may well be sued. And if they lose, theyll be required to pay their opponents attorneys fees.............
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Nice to see they're still in business despite employing a notorious felon. Next up for this formerly prestigious firm? Late night basic cable commercials featuring some superannuated "celebrity"* touting the legal acumen of the law offices of Greenberg Traurig - fighting for YOU!
*I'm thinking Rula Lenska.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)That ups their slimeball score by a factor of 10. For a law firm to issue directions to state clerks is pretty damned arrogant.
starroute
(12,977 posts)May 5, 2005
Greenberg Traurig has yet to receive more than $314,000 in legal fees charged to a Bush committee during the 2000 Florida recount, RAW STORY can confirm.
As a corporation, Greenbergs unpaid tab represents a massive in-kind campaign contribution, far larger than anything that went unreported by DeLay. But it appears to be legal: corporations are allowed to donate any amount to the nebulous type of committee employed during the recount. It would, however, violate the committee's self-imposed $5,000 contribution limit from individual donors. . . .
Bushs decision to employ Greenberg took flak from some Democrats at the time. Shortly before the case came before the Supreme Court, the firm announced the hire of John Scalia, son of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gores attorneys and ethics experts didnt press the issue at the time, saying John Scalia wasnt directly connected to the case.
The formal announcement of Scalias hire came on Jan. 9, 2001, after the court had ruled. Abramoffs hire was announced two days before . . .
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)said that clerks will start issuing marriage licenses in Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties on Monday.
marym625
(17,997 posts)cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)In 2007, the ACLU, filed suit on behalf of Martin Gill, a gay foster parent, seeking to have Florida's 33-year-old statue barring adoption by gay men and lesbians struck down as unconstitutionally discriminatory. At that time, Miami-Dade County Juvenile Judge Cindy Lederman reached out to Bass to ask her to undertake the pro bono representation on behalf of the man's two foster children. The case was going to involve a challenge to the constitutionality of the law. The law had previously been challenged unsuccessfully on two occasions: once when the 11th Circuit federal court of appeals upheld the statute and once when the Florida Supreme Court declined to hold it unconstitutional.
Bass, now Chair of the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association and Global Operating Shareholder at international law firm Greenberg Traurig, PA, took on the challenge. Greenberg Traurig shareholder and fellow litigator Ricardo A. Gonzalez also joined her.
~ snip ~
Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued a statement on the following day, announcing that the statute would no longer be enforced anywhere in Florida. Additionally, the Department of Children and Families issued a directive that prospective adoptive parents would no longer be asked questions about their sexual orientation.
~ snip ~
lark
(23,121 posts)Someone decided that the huge new courtroom area specifically and beautifully built for weddings will not longer be used. They'd rather waste the 1000 ft. space and 3 rooms and who knows how many tens of thousands of tax payer dollars rather than face the prospect of marrying gay couples. A law firm 1 block away has agreed to marry anyone who wants for the same fee charged by the court. Of course, they probably don't have the nicely designed space for this purpose that the court does. Interestingly, the top judge has said that he would continue to marry people, so pass the popcorn, this could get interesting.
Redneck intolerant racists run this city and always have.